The best of rivals

By Jake Niall

31 July 2011 — 12:00am

COLLINGWOOD and Essendon are rivals only in the way that BHP and Rio Tinto might be considered rivals. They are giants and competitors in the same market, but when confronted with a profits tax or another equalisation measure, they present a united front to the government.

The Pies and Bombers have shared interests and a common enemy - the Carlton Football Club, which has had far more storied clashes and genuine hostility with Collingwood and Essendon than either of today's combatants have had with each other.

The Essendon-Collingwood story doesn't have anything like the same animosity, despite their size and premiership tallies. Geographically, their relative distance meant their early history lacked the direct, vicious competition of the various inner-city foes. Whatever rivalry exists is founded upon two dates - the 1990 grand final and April 25 each year, when they get together for what, in truth, is really a joint production and shared bonanza. Anzac Day is another instance in which there is a strong vested interest, as the clubs are under constant pressure to justify their duopoly.

The Essendon fans don't particularly like Collingwood - who does? - and vice versa, but their respective hierarchies are on very friendly terms. Indeed, there would be few combinations of clubs that would have cosier relations.

Rivalries we call ''bitter'' usually contain three elements. The first and most indispensable part is that there is some history of high-stakes games, preferably grand finals. The second is some on-field incidents such as Dermott Brereton running through Paul Van Der Haar and the Essendon huddle (separate atrocities), the ''line in the sand'' game of 2004, a grand final brawl (1985) and accusations that one club might be sniffing something stronger than eucalyptus oil, as Kevin Sheedy famously alleged (wrongly) of the Hawks in 1984. Add Matthew Lloyd ironing out Brad Sewell in 2009 and the resultant histrionics of Campbell Brown and Alastair Clarkson and one can see why Essendon and Hawthorn aren't holding hands. Carlton ticks all the boxes in its rivalry with the Bombers - the 1999 preliminary final is still treated like a flag by the Blues - and while recent Collingwood and Carlton games haven't been as dramatic, their ancient antipathy remains.

Advertisement

The third element is lingering personal antagonism, which is often a result of particular incidents.

In the case of Essendon and Collingwood, relations are stronger than most clubs because of the friendship between the respective presidents, David Evans and Eddie McGuire. The pair have offices alongside each other in Jolimont and see each other regularly. Eddie serves on the advisory board of Evans's company, Evans and Partners, and it emerged last week that McGuire and Evans would serve together on the board of the incoming Big Bash League team, the Melbourne Stars. The McGuire-Evans relationship is what one Essendon official called ''the X-factor'' in the clubs' harmonious dealings.

This year, the sense that these clubs operate as a superpower bloc has been enhanced by the AFL's equalisation committee, which is helping devise the AFL's new deal for struggling clubs. Evans and Collingwood chief executive Gary Pert are among the club representatives, along with Richmond's chief executive Brendon Gale, St Kilda president Greg Westaway and Fremantle's chief executive, Steve Rosich.

Clearly, the AFL wanted Victoria's most powerful clubs, Collingwood and Essendon, to ''own'' whatever measures are introduced. As Andrew Demetriou has indicated, it won't introduce a wealth tax or cap football department spending. These are handcuffs, obviously, that the Pies and Dons, oppose. The trade-off is that the stronger clubs will receive fewer dollars in distributions from head office. In essence, the powerful clubs will get less, but will also receive less interference in their capacity to generate money and spend it.

Collingwood and Essendon share the gate for the two matches they play every year, ensuring that each helps the other to promote Anzac Day and the far less lucrative return bout. Essendon also shares the gate with the Blues for their two games each year, but Collingwood and Carlton don't share.

When you talk to these clubs, you'll seldom hear the Dons muttering about ''bloody Collingwood'', or the Pies using similar language about the Dons. The same cannot be said of their respective attitudes to Carlton, which didn't want to trade Brendan Fevola to Collingwood unless it was a deal that would hurt the Pies (who lost interest quickly). Subsequently, when the Fev bomb detonated in Brisbane, a Carlton insider quipped that ''we should have sent him there [Collingwood] to stuff them up''.

Loading

A decade ago, Essendon was the clear benchmark and Collingwood was beginning its ascent under an energetic McGuire. Today, the positions have reversed. The Bombers are regrouping under a bold new regime, shedding some of their traditional conservatism, and, like Carlton, are chasing the Pies on and off-field. This points to another quirk of the Essendon-Collingwood alliance - since the early 1990s, they've never been strong at the same time; when one is up, the other has been a straggler.

But if we see the Bombers fly up and get among the contenders before Collingwood declines, the alliance might get an edge that it lacks. If their alliance makes football's answer to BHP and Rio Tinto, both would prefer to be the Big Australian.